Yep, you know those well known liberals Arnold Swartzenegger & Charlton Heston. :rolleyes: And “rich”? I dunno, many in the back rows are working for scale- when they can get it. I admit the crowd there is more liberal & more wealthy than another random cross section of Americans, but 90% is ridiculous.
I think the reason he got such enormous applause when announced as a winner was that a bunch of people had protested his nomination on the basis that since it was partly staged, it wasn’t a documentary.
For someone who thinks Michael Moore is an idiot, you sure seem to attribute awesome powers to him. Think about what you said: Michael Moore’s clumsy shouts are going to lengthen the war and lead to the death of many soldiers. Seriously now.
I agree with Moore. I think Bush should be ashamed of himself. I think the integrity of the current administration is a fiction. However, I agree with you that Michael Moore was booed off the stage.
I have mixed feelings about his words; I agree with what he said but I don’t agree with the way he said it. There are ways that he could have said the same thing with elegance and grace and still have been angry, strong, and opinionated. I don’t recall Gandhi shouting shrilly.
The opposition to the war is a valid and important view that should continue to be espoused by those who believe in it. Perhaps Moore did not want to teach anyone or give anyone food for thought. Maybe he just wanted to express his rage. If so, bully for him. He used his 45 seconds as he chose. However, if he wanted to make people think, to reconsider the justness of the war, he botched it. He alienated people who might have supported his view; he failed where his documentaries have succeeded.
My mother used to say, “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.”
Speaking of fictions… 45 seconds is 45 seconds is 45 seconds.
Before Moore slings accusations concerning fiction and non-fiction, he should be sure his own house is in order. I understand that if you agree with his politics you will grant him lattitude, but diliberate falsehoods for dramatic effect are not proper in a documentary. In the case of Bowling for Columbine, there are numerous incidents.
–He argues that “weapons of mass destruction” are built on the Lockheed assembly line in Littleton and that this influenced violence in the community. He shows ominous footage of rockets on an assembly line. The problem is that this assembly line is not in Littleton, where they manufacture satellite launch vehicles.
–He blames a Michigan “welfare-to-work” program for a shooting death involving a child left unsupervised by his mother. No mention that the mother had previously sent the child to live with her brother in a drug stash-house.
–Probably the most famous sequence involves Moore receiving a gun for opening a bank account. He edits to look as if he was presented a gun inside the bank upon opening the account. The truth is that after qualifying for a long-tern CD, you were presented with a certificate redeamable at a gun store after being processed through a standard backgroud check.
I’m not saying that his point of view is invalid or that he should be silenced. It is obvious, however, that he begins with specific targets and enemies and shapes his work to cast them in the worst light possible. A good documentarian will enter any project with certain assumptions, but they should not blatently manipulate their work because of them.
The people who agreed with him wanted to HEAR him so they weren’t making any noises at all. The point of booing is to drown out the speaker so he or she cannot be heard.
I’ll have to watch the tape again, but when they did the audience shot while he spoke, I saw mostly smiling faces, listening.
I thought that Moore spoke out in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was just tacky.
I have no problem with people voicing their political views but there is a time and a place for it. An awards show is not the right time or place.
I also have to wonder what reasons for going to war Moore thinks are “fictitious”. Does Moore think Iraq complied with the UN resolutions? Does he think Sadam did not create and use chemical weapons? Does he think Sadam is just a fuzzy little furball with good will for all?
I never liked Moore and his work before. Now he is on my boycott list.[#1]
Slee
#1. The only other person on my boycott list is Jane Fonda. That whole Vietnam crap she pulled was just stupid.
Sam, that was disgraceful. To imply that someone who publicly speaks against this war is offering aid and comfort to the enemy either is, or ought to be, beneath you. You deserve a Pitting. If you have as much class as I think you do, you’ll march right in here and apologize.
Then trudge to the river, to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a Chorus of Bitter Virgins, intoning Dirges of Woe and Humiliation. So let it posted, so let it be done.
Ahh someone finally attacked the content of the speech. Now that I think about it, it’s a tricky position to take the other side when you don’t always the particular motivations of the speaker.
But here are some ideas about fictitiousness:
The IAEA report that GW and Tony Blair boasted about but never came to anything.
The evidence that GW referenced in his State of the Union that Iraq tried to buy Uranium that were fakes.
The “dangerous” drone aircraft made out of balsa wood and duct tape.
The Saddam/Al Qaeda links to that Bush & Powell claimed yet seem rather tenuous.
And finally of course, I’m sure that Moore probably doubts any of GW’s stated motivations, in favor of the “blood for oil” hypothesis.
Before you read my post, take a look to your left, and note my location, please.
Flint, Michigan.
Michael Moore is from here. Davison, to be precise, which borders Flint. Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine both had stuff to say about this part of the world. Negative stuff, but stuff nonetheless.
Now, let me tell you where I work. I work at City Hall, in Flint.
Wanna know what I heard about Michael Moore’s speech while I was at work today?
*Not a damn thing. * And I’m totally serious.
You want to know why?
Because the average citizen here doesn’t give a rat’s behind about Michael Moore. He’s not doing anything positive for us.
Now all he’s done is give Hollywood as bad a rep as Flint. Tough to do, because Flint pretty well sucks. But if there’s anything Michael Moore is good at, it’s making things look even worse than they actually are, even if, like Flint, they already suck.
When come back, bring…no, on second thought, just FedEx the pie, okay? Thanks.
Who exactly was the ‘we’ that Moore was referring to when he made his little rant…? I sure as hell hope he wasn’t referring to the American people in general, because as much as he railed against a ‘fictitious election’ and a ‘fictitious president’, I sure don’t remember electing him to speak for me…
I find this point hard to believe.
The following came from one of the bank employees…
“You do a CD and we’ll hand you a gun”
“Once you do the background check and everything, it’s yours to go”
“We have a vault (in) which at all times we keep at least 500 firearms”
“…we are a licensed firearm dealer”
So you are either misinformed or are attempting to purposely deceive us. No offense intended, but have you actually seen the movie?
Sincerely,
Bo Arfai
Oh, cut it out with the demands for apologies, already. Since when do people on the Straight Dope board have to apologize to public figures for dissing them? Your schtick is getting tiresome.
Moore didn’t just say the war was wrong. He called Bush a ‘fictitious’ president, who took power in a ‘fictitious’ election, and is waging a ‘fictitious’ war. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see how that can play overseas.
And besides, I don’t think there is anything I could possibly say about/to Michael Moore that could come close to describing the deep disgust I have for the man. The day I apologize to him will be the day we’re having a snowball fight in Hell. He disgusts me. He is a nasty, stupid, uneducated boor making millions of dollars off of being a jerk. He is unfair to the people he interviews, he makes things up, and he’s by all accounts a nasty piece of work to the people who work for him.
Like I said, he had every right to say what he did. I have every right to disagree with it. And yes, I think saying crap like that in front of a worldwide audience of millions during wartime is irresponsible. I don’t think I’m alone in that, although it appears I may be the only one on the SDMB who thinks that way. That’s fine with me.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Sam, but I do believe you lumped anti-war protesters into the same group in which you tossed Michael Moore and his “shock and awe” approach to voicing his opinions. You claimed that anti-war protesters, in aggregate, send a message of disunity to the Iraqis and thus emboldening their will to fight. You are, in essence, saying that I am inadvertantly supporting the Iraqi cause when I exercise my right to protest.
Anti-war is not anti-American, Sam and to say that what thousands of people do in the streets of America and England matter to those in Iraq who are fighting off expertly trained soldiers, armadas of tanks and helicopters, and laser-guided missles they can’t stop is to also say that, apart from not dying, what Michael Moore or a bunch of neo- and aging- hippies, hipsters, lefties, and those who just don’t want to work on a particular day say or do matters to those who, by neccesity, are paying more attention to their AK-47 than they are to their newspapers and television.
(my god that was an incredibly long and complex sentence).
To sum up the last sentence succintly, Iraqis are more concerned about not being slaughtered and staying alive (either by fighting or by surrendering) to give a rat’s ass what Michael Moore or Adrian Brody or me or Nader or anyone has to say about the war. They dont’ care; they have bigger worries.
I veered off topic. You said that I, and other anti-war protesters, are emboldening the fighting spirit of the Iraqis. You are emboldening my liberal fighting spirit with tripe like that. So what if there is disunity amongst the “coalition”? Do you think they care? The 30% (give or take) in both America and Britian who oppose the war don’t really matter to them, do they? I mean, those 30% aren’t fighting and probably aren’t going to surrender to stop the war, so what do they care? They are probably a bit more focused on the thousands of armed soldiers infilitrating their country without UN sanction to prove that Iraq violated UN resolutions and to prevent them from doing things without UN sanction ever again.
Whoever asked you to apologize, Sam, probably didnt’ mean to Michael Moore. I’m sure he meant to the vocal anti-war people here you insulted.
But bear in mind, though, I have the utmost respect for you, your opinion, and your name sake (BEST John Prine song EVER) and find your posts (usually) well-informed, coherent, and interesting. I just take offense to those who say I’m anti-American or pro-Iraqi or somehow aiding the Iraqis with my anti-war views.
Ok, that being said, I’d like to take a shot at Michael Moore as well:
I find him interesting.
I find him funny.
I find him engaging (for the most part—Dick Clark and gun violence my ass).
I find him witty.
I found his little speech at the Oscars oppressive. For one thing, he’s still whining about the election. Yeah, we know Bush stole it, but that was three years ago (2 and a half, whatever); stop worrying about it.
The war isn’t fictious; people are dying. That’s not fiction.
The reasons for going to war are fictious. I do agree with him there. The evidence is “secret” and “a national security risk” or something along those lines. Iraq and Al-Quida supposedly have links which they wont’ tell us about. There are supposedly WMD piled sky-high we can’t find. Forged documents make their way to the UN. We’re on Orange Alert because terrorists from a country which has historically not attacked us may attack us.
So, I agree with one line from the speech. Pathetic. It was hasty, ineloquent, and full of gross generalizations (although his generalizations would have been much worse if he referenced the audience as 90% rich limosuine liberals).
As for the approriateness of the speech: he had every right to do that. It was his 45 seconds of fame. He was allowed to say whatever he wanted (short of swearing, I would imagine). He wasted it with the crap he did say. It wasn’t rude, per se, as much as it was badly presented and badly formulated.
I was much more offended by the guys who won the short documentary Oscar for the 9/11 documentary. One of the guys looked towards Heaven (presumably) and said something like “We did it, Gary” (although I’m not sure if Gary was the name), where “Gary” had been a cop killed on 9/11. A cheap sentimental ploy like that (“I’m invoking the image of a dead hero; I’m sooooo wonderful and have such meaning behind my work”) just irritates me. Moore’s wasnt’ as bad; no dead cop imagery in his. C’est la vie.
Alright. Enough incoherent ramblings. I’m done
–greenphan
I saw a screener at a friend’s house several months ago, quite frankly I was not following it as close as I would have in a theater. If I mixed up the actual film footage with various media reports I apologize, that was not my intent.
Moore is a fine filmmaker, IMO, I just feel he sometimes plays loose with the facts to make his point.
I’m sure he is just as biased as charelton heston. But perhaps his bias leans more towards the truth?
Regardless, i’d be interested to know where you got that list of criticisms. I want to check out that source and see where they claim to have gotten their info from.
But doesn’t everyone, in a way? I mean, when I try to argue with someone, I’ll either ignore evidence contrary to my position or, if I have the ammunition, refute it. In “Bowling for Columbine”, I think Moore ignored a lot but also created connections which weren’t there (again I bring up the shameful Dick Clark escapade). While Moore’s central thesis is valid, his supporting evidence is not.
–greenphan
Okay, for those who think that there was an equal number of cheers, claps and boos, or that my characterization of him being ‘booed off the stage’ is a lie…
Here’s an (http://people.ku.edu/~bag/mooreoscars.mp3) of his speech.
Decide for yourself.
So the Academy voters should base their votes on who will give the most politically correct speeches and not upon the quality of their work? Bullshit.
Thanks for the MP3. It refutes your ridiculous assertion that the music started when he was 10 seconds into his speech. The music started because he had run out of time. Therefore he wasn’t booed “off the stage” as opposed to simply being booed.
As for the booing it’s certainly loud but it could be a relatively small number booing loudly. That is what the video seemed to indicate. I don’t remember seeing too many people booing. It’s hard to tell unless you were there.
No doubt these people have their own bias, but you asked for the criticisms. For the record, I am not a republican, an NRA member or a liberal-basher. I do enjoy documentary film, that is the basis for my gripe.
Not looking to feud with you, honestly.